Fate of glyphosate in wheat during milling and bread production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives Glyphosate is an active ingredient in widely used herbicides; its residues have been observed in grain and grain‐based foods. This work investigated the fate of glyphosate and its degradation product aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in milling fractions of wheat and during the bread making process. Samples of wheat were pearled to obtain successive fractions representing outer kernel layers. Straight grade flour and bread were prepared from the two samples with the highest glyphosate concentration (2.1 and 2.8 mg/kg). Findings All pearling and milling product fractions, dough, fermented dough, bread crust, and bread crumb were analyzed for glyphosate and AMPA using solvent extraction with derivatization and liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Glyphosate was the only residue detected in samples. On average, the pearling experiment demonstrated that 50% of the total glyphosate mass resided in the outer 17% of the kernels. Similarly, 81% of the total glyphosate mass in the wheat was associated with the bran, shorts, and feeds milling fractions. No changes in glyphosate concentration were observed during the preparation of dough, fermented dough, and bread. Conclusions Milling provides the best opportunity for reducing exposure to glyphosate, as the baking process did not affect glyphosate residues. Concentrations in bread made from straight grade flour will be approximately 4× lower than that made from whole grain flour. Significance and novelty The use of Canada Western Red Spring from commercial wheat shipments provide realistic glyphosate residue concentrations and also reflect the predominance of this type of wheat used in Canada and elsewhere for bread. Therefore, the outcomes from this study are particularly relevant for estimating consumers’ dietary exposure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".